14-Jul-2011, 08:58 PM
This discussion is from the Nirmukta facebook group. I'm pasting it instead of posting a screenshot.
Ajita Kamal
A note to those who invoke evolutionary biology in conversations about ethics involving moral premises. Please read up on the naturalistic fallacy. There are countless moral stances that we all hold that are in opposition to our basal evolutionary impulses that evolved during the Pleistocene. When you invoke evolutionary biology to justify moral premises, you are just rationalizing your own values. As Dawkins has pointed out multiple times since his book 'The Selfish Gene' was published and roundly misunderstood and misused by both right-wing and leftist idealists, evolution only describes things as they happen, not as they SHOULD be in moral terms.
13 hours ago · Like · · Unsubscribe
Nishchal Hansi, Dolly S Koshy, Gayathri Iyer and 4 others like this.
Suraj AB Morality is a function of the zeitgeist. Simple.
13 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Vivek Koppikar ^True..alongside ethic, politic, spirit, cultural aura and things
13 hours ago · Unlike · 2 people
Alexander Safir -
...morality is also negotiation; and one's ability and desire to conform to a particular standard which confers membership to a group, an expression of one's status.
As long as we're weighing in. ;)
13 hours ago · Unlike · 3 people
Vivek Koppikar ||"evolution only describes things as they happen, not as they SHOULD be in moral terms"|| as clear as it gets. Teeth evolved ... used for defense, offense, digestion, sex appeal, and many things
13 hours ago · Unlike · 1 person
Vivek Koppikar Alexander that is a great quote!
13 hours ago · Like
Vivek Koppikar By that standard, what I may think of as an immoral act might be considered moral elsewhere or elsewhen. Which in my opinion is just the way it is.
13 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ganesh Veluswami Surely, the Fight or Flight reaction that helped id in the Pleistocene era will be an impediment in todays world. Imagine when your boss is firing you...
Surely, we all have EVOLVED beyond those baser instincts to live cordially in a civilized society.
12 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · Unlike · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Ganesh, in your last statement you are deliberately conflating biological evolution with moral/ethical evolution.
12 hours ago · Like
Vivek Koppikar Good catch...
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal The key point to note is that in many situations actions/behaviors that can be evolutionarily advantageous to an individual may be considered immoral by that individual and/or by the society that s/he lives in.
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ganesh Veluswami Thanks Ajita. I see I've so much more to learn.
I was under the impression that the latter follows after the former has laid the foundation and then both proceed simultaneously. In short, I was under the impression, they ain't independent of each other. My bad.
12 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · Like
Vivek Koppikar Sounds accurate, but I don't seem to be able to think of an example.
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Most of those things would still be considered immoral even if there are no negative social consequences.
Vivek, here's an example.
Say you are in a position to cheat on your spouse, and no one will know. You can have a love-child, spreading your genes, and no one will know. The cheating on your spouse would be considered immoral even though it would be evolutionarily advantageous.
12 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Ganesh Veluswami ^ Isn't rape one such example?
12 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Yes Ganesh, rape is a brilliant example.
12 hours ago · Like
Vivek Koppikar Yep, I was about to cite someone with high libido hooking every chick he sees
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Recently a researcher, an evolutionary psychologist, published a paper on how rape may have been adaptive in primitive humans (and even before our ancestors were humans). By no stretch of conventional moral reasoning can rape be considered moral. The inclusion of moral premises- values shaped by our subjective experiences- dictates that rape is one of the most vile of human behaviors.
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Just fyi guys, I actually studied evolutionary biology under some of the most accomplished scientists in the US. I dropped out of the PhD program after my core courses and went for a job, but not before gaining a fairly good understanding of population genetics, evo-devo, speciation, macro evolution etc... In retrospect, those classes taught me about how brutal evolution (and nature as a whole) is, and how far we've come in honing our sympathies and rejecting our baser tendencies!
12 hours ago · Like · 3 people
Vivek Koppikar ||"how far we've come in honing our sympathies and rejecting our baser tendencies!"|| Yes... and a great example is the use of condoms... regarding conscious rejection our basic tendencies
12 hours ago · Unlike · 2 people
Vivek Koppikar ||"classes taught me about how brutal evolution"|| beg to differ .... I would use the term "pitilessly indifferent" instead of "Brutal"
12 hours ago · Unlike · 2 people
Vivek Koppikar Being brutal implies conscious directionality
12 hours ago · Unlike · 3 people
Ajita Kamal Yup. The thing is, the human brain is very adaptive. Culture shapes us a lot more than we give it credit for. Culture is the difference between a primitive caveman whose idea of sex was clubbing a female, and a civilized man today (at least superficially). But sometimes I feel that we would still be cavemen if not for the women of the species (jk).
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Arjun Ishwar Ajita Kamal Really? I am planning to apply to a grad program! Can you give me some suggestions? I already have grad courses in population genetics , and evolution, microbial evolution, and a publication on algal evolution under my belt. Any help would be greatly appreciated
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Sure man, what do you need to know? Its been a few years for me though. Send me a pm.
12 hours ago · Like
Ankur Ravinarayana Chakravarthy Even if we were to assume that evolution is prescriptive, which it isn't, it would still run into the is-ought problem eventually.
11 hours ago · Unlike · 1 person
Lalit Mohan Chawla Ajita Kamal
"Most of those things would still be considered immoral even if there are no negative social consequences.
Vivek, here's an example.
Say you are in a position to cheat on your spouse, and no one will know. You can have a love-child, spreading your genes, and no one will know. The cheating on your spouse would be considered immoral even though it would be evolutionarily advantageous."
didn't get you, are you implying that finding immoral the act of cheating on spouse a social construct rather than outcome of evolution because
cheating is actually advantageous
when we say "The cheating on your spouse would be considered immoral even though it would be evolutionary advantageous."
shouldn't we consider that it is also actually advantageous to find such acts immoral , it is advantageous to feel guilt after cheating when we are talking about individual-selection vs. group-selection,
that said i am pretty much in agreement against natural fallacy and think that it is a cause of much confusion ,
3 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal If you can get away with having a secret love-child, it is evolutionarily advantageous to the individual, period. Group selection theory is very complicated and highly misunderstood, and involves many levels of selection. The evolutionary advantage to the individual, in all types of selection criteria, is calculated by measuring fitness (a population genetics term) of the individual. Guilt can help the group evolutionarily, but IN THIS CASE not without conferring an evolutionary cost to the individual.
The truth is, evolutionary psychology is a very shaky science. The key here is that moral values are being shaped by cultural evolution in addition to being determined in major part by our biology, and these translate to social behaviors that in turn affect our biological evolution. Its a feedback loop- the co-evolution of biology and culture. We humans are rather unique in this regard (there is very little cultural evolution in other intelligent social animals such as chimps and dolphins, culture defined as horizontal non-genetic transfer of information between individuals).
You're right that the reason why we think of cheating as immoral is because being honest is advantages to the group (even though it may be disadvantageous to the individual), and that is exactly what morality is about. But we (most of us, at least) are taught to feel guilty about cheating by parents and society. In addition, there are other reasons why we don't cheat, such as love. We choose to be decent people, even at an evolutionary cost. Biologically altruism is explained by evolutionary advantage to the group (and, indirectly, to the individual). But behaviorally, we are altruistic not because we expect something in return, but because it's the right thing to do.
Eusocial animals like bees and ants have very rigid policing systems in place to prevent cheating, but these systems do not involve value-based moral emotions such as love and guilt (of course). They involve genetically predetermined chemical intermediation of behavior, such as workers that tear apart those females that lay eggs when the most advantageous set-up for the entire hive is for the queen to lay eggs (sisters are less related to each other than to the queen, thereby making it more genetically advantageous for each worker bee when the queen lays eggs than when their sisters do).
about an hour ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Consider this scenario. You see a dog hit by a car, and go out of your way to help it, taking care of it in your house till it gets better, spending your time and money. Your resources are being "wasted" on the dog. People who do not feel the emotions that you do may make more money and more connection with other people during all that time that you're spending with the dog, increasing their fitness and fecundity (another population genetics term). But it can be argued that you are the more moral one of the two, given certain moral premises. (Of course, given certain other moral premises, the other person may be more moral, since that person may be taking care of injured children in a hospital, etc) There are always moral premises. This is the key thing to remember when discussing ethics.
about an hour ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla "Most of those things would still be considered immoral even if there are no negative social consequences...(adultery)"
my point is that i don't think the adultery example satisfies this since we do agree that it would have negative social consequences to live with idea that adultery is moral , we can make it sound that it is not by particular cases such as a secret love child but i don't think short leash control would work that way ,
in the dog example "You see a dog hit by a car, and go out of your way to help it, taking care of it in your house till it gets better, spending your time and money. Your resources are being "wasted" on the dog. "
let me make it more explicit , a person trying to save his child which in reality is not his child at all and getting crippled for life , success in saving neither helped in gene propagation nor in monetary benefit but , the urge to save the child did not have any advantage(in this case) but it is the presence of the urge that has in many other cases such as saving actual child , it is the urge to save fellow animals specially the cute looking ones that causes the action of saving the dog
26 minutes ago · Like
Rakshi --- Shall we shift this to the forums, please? Very important discussion, and runs the risk of getting lost in the annals of FB 'unarchives. '
23 minutes ago · Like · 2 people
Ajita Kamal "my point is that i don't think the adultery example satisfies this since we do agree that it would have negative social consequences to live with idea that adultery is moral"
But why do we decide that adultery is immoral? Is it because of negative biological consequences? This is why I presented a hypothetical case of adultery where there are NO negative consequences. Most people would still consider it immoral.
"it is the urge to save fellow animals specially the cute looking ones that causes the action of saving the dog"
And that urge is a moral one informed by subjective values.
19 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal The urge to save a cute animal may have evolutionary biological roots, and may translate to biological benefits in certain situations, but saving a cute animal is not always necessarily biologically advantageous, and even when it is not advantageous, it can be moral.
15 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal The point about altruism is buried in one of my comments. Let me pull it out.
Biologically altruism evolved to benefit individuals and groups- that is, it is actually self-serving. But morally, altruism is selfless from the behavioral point o f view.
We often argue that being good just because one expects rewards from god is not morality at all. Morality is being good for goodness sake. It is being good because it is the right thing to do.
12 minutes ago · Like
Rakshi --- Ajita Kamal: Forums, please.
11 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Sure, Rakshi
11 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
Ganesh Veluswami Hey Rakshi, ain't you an admin too? Can't you move it to the forums too? Just wondering.
10 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla "But why do we decide that adultery is immoral? Is it because of negative biological consequences? This is why I presented a hypothetical case of adultery where there are NO negative consequences. Most people would still consider it immoral."
i "helplessly" find it immoral even when i am trying to get in terms as to override and not find it immoral
"This is why I presented a hypothetical case of adultery where there are NO negative "
"The urge to save a cute animal may have evolutionary biological roots, and may translate to biological benefits in certain situations, but saving a cute animal is not always necessarily biologically advantageous, and even when it is not advantageous, it can be moral."
let me present my problem this way
i find it gross: eating a candy bar placed in a insulated piece of plastic placed in shit , later candy bar is extracted , opened with gloved hands and presented to me completely free from shit , i will still find it gross despite my knowledge that it is completely hygenic and healthy to it , this is because of the short leash control of finding anything that comes from gross shit to be gross that i find it "helplessly gross"
the same way i find it "helpessly immoral" the act of adultery besides you presenting a case and my own desire to not find adultery healthy
9 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla *adultery immoral
8 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla *adultery immoral not healthy
8 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla no let ajita do the archiving since he won't have word limit proeblem
7 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal "i "helplessly" find it immoral even when i am trying to get in terms as to override and not find it immoral "
I agree. But it is not just biology that makes you feel that way. It is also cultural conditioning- Moral education. What we have developed over thousands of years of culture. Remember the caveman example from above? Very few cavemen would have found adultery immoral, helplessly or otherwise
The shit candy example targets a more basal instinct, and is not exactly related to moral values, although you are right to bring it up, since it is about values in general. But the same logic would apply in such cases also, if there is sufficient conditioning in culture..
OK, Rakshi, moving to forums now!
3 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal
A note to those who invoke evolutionary biology in conversations about ethics involving moral premises. Please read up on the naturalistic fallacy. There are countless moral stances that we all hold that are in opposition to our basal evolutionary impulses that evolved during the Pleistocene. When you invoke evolutionary biology to justify moral premises, you are just rationalizing your own values. As Dawkins has pointed out multiple times since his book 'The Selfish Gene' was published and roundly misunderstood and misused by both right-wing and leftist idealists, evolution only describes things as they happen, not as they SHOULD be in moral terms.
13 hours ago · Like · · Unsubscribe
Nishchal Hansi, Dolly S Koshy, Gayathri Iyer and 4 others like this.
Suraj AB Morality is a function of the zeitgeist. Simple.
13 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Vivek Koppikar ^True..alongside ethic, politic, spirit, cultural aura and things
13 hours ago · Unlike · 2 people
Alexander Safir -
...morality is also negotiation; and one's ability and desire to conform to a particular standard which confers membership to a group, an expression of one's status.
As long as we're weighing in. ;)
13 hours ago · Unlike · 3 people
Vivek Koppikar ||"evolution only describes things as they happen, not as they SHOULD be in moral terms"|| as clear as it gets. Teeth evolved ... used for defense, offense, digestion, sex appeal, and many things
13 hours ago · Unlike · 1 person
Vivek Koppikar Alexander that is a great quote!
13 hours ago · Like
Vivek Koppikar By that standard, what I may think of as an immoral act might be considered moral elsewhere or elsewhen. Which in my opinion is just the way it is.
13 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ganesh Veluswami Surely, the Fight or Flight reaction that helped id in the Pleistocene era will be an impediment in todays world. Imagine when your boss is firing you...
Surely, we all have EVOLVED beyond those baser instincts to live cordially in a civilized society.
12 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · Unlike · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Ganesh, in your last statement you are deliberately conflating biological evolution with moral/ethical evolution.
12 hours ago · Like
Vivek Koppikar Good catch...
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal The key point to note is that in many situations actions/behaviors that can be evolutionarily advantageous to an individual may be considered immoral by that individual and/or by the society that s/he lives in.
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ganesh Veluswami Thanks Ajita. I see I've so much more to learn.
I was under the impression that the latter follows after the former has laid the foundation and then both proceed simultaneously. In short, I was under the impression, they ain't independent of each other. My bad.
12 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · Like
Vivek Koppikar Sounds accurate, but I don't seem to be able to think of an example.
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Most of those things would still be considered immoral even if there are no negative social consequences.
Vivek, here's an example.
Say you are in a position to cheat on your spouse, and no one will know. You can have a love-child, spreading your genes, and no one will know. The cheating on your spouse would be considered immoral even though it would be evolutionarily advantageous.
12 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Ganesh Veluswami ^ Isn't rape one such example?
12 hours ago via Facebook Mobile · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Yes Ganesh, rape is a brilliant example.
12 hours ago · Like
Vivek Koppikar Yep, I was about to cite someone with high libido hooking every chick he sees
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Recently a researcher, an evolutionary psychologist, published a paper on how rape may have been adaptive in primitive humans (and even before our ancestors were humans). By no stretch of conventional moral reasoning can rape be considered moral. The inclusion of moral premises- values shaped by our subjective experiences- dictates that rape is one of the most vile of human behaviors.
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Ajita Kamal Just fyi guys, I actually studied evolutionary biology under some of the most accomplished scientists in the US. I dropped out of the PhD program after my core courses and went for a job, but not before gaining a fairly good understanding of population genetics, evo-devo, speciation, macro evolution etc... In retrospect, those classes taught me about how brutal evolution (and nature as a whole) is, and how far we've come in honing our sympathies and rejecting our baser tendencies!
12 hours ago · Like · 3 people
Vivek Koppikar ||"how far we've come in honing our sympathies and rejecting our baser tendencies!"|| Yes... and a great example is the use of condoms... regarding conscious rejection our basic tendencies
12 hours ago · Unlike · 2 people
Vivek Koppikar ||"classes taught me about how brutal evolution"|| beg to differ .... I would use the term "pitilessly indifferent" instead of "Brutal"
12 hours ago · Unlike · 2 people
Vivek Koppikar Being brutal implies conscious directionality
12 hours ago · Unlike · 3 people
Ajita Kamal Yup. The thing is, the human brain is very adaptive. Culture shapes us a lot more than we give it credit for. Culture is the difference between a primitive caveman whose idea of sex was clubbing a female, and a civilized man today (at least superficially). But sometimes I feel that we would still be cavemen if not for the women of the species (jk).
12 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Arjun Ishwar Ajita Kamal Really? I am planning to apply to a grad program! Can you give me some suggestions? I already have grad courses in population genetics , and evolution, microbial evolution, and a publication on algal evolution under my belt. Any help would be greatly appreciated
12 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Sure man, what do you need to know? Its been a few years for me though. Send me a pm.
12 hours ago · Like
Ankur Ravinarayana Chakravarthy Even if we were to assume that evolution is prescriptive, which it isn't, it would still run into the is-ought problem eventually.
11 hours ago · Unlike · 1 person
Lalit Mohan Chawla Ajita Kamal
"Most of those things would still be considered immoral even if there are no negative social consequences.
Vivek, here's an example.
Say you are in a position to cheat on your spouse, and no one will know. You can have a love-child, spreading your genes, and no one will know. The cheating on your spouse would be considered immoral even though it would be evolutionarily advantageous."
didn't get you, are you implying that finding immoral the act of cheating on spouse a social construct rather than outcome of evolution because
cheating is actually advantageous
when we say "The cheating on your spouse would be considered immoral even though it would be evolutionary advantageous."
shouldn't we consider that it is also actually advantageous to find such acts immoral , it is advantageous to feel guilt after cheating when we are talking about individual-selection vs. group-selection,
that said i am pretty much in agreement against natural fallacy and think that it is a cause of much confusion ,
3 hours ago · Like
Ajita Kamal If you can get away with having a secret love-child, it is evolutionarily advantageous to the individual, period. Group selection theory is very complicated and highly misunderstood, and involves many levels of selection. The evolutionary advantage to the individual, in all types of selection criteria, is calculated by measuring fitness (a population genetics term) of the individual. Guilt can help the group evolutionarily, but IN THIS CASE not without conferring an evolutionary cost to the individual.
The truth is, evolutionary psychology is a very shaky science. The key here is that moral values are being shaped by cultural evolution in addition to being determined in major part by our biology, and these translate to social behaviors that in turn affect our biological evolution. Its a feedback loop- the co-evolution of biology and culture. We humans are rather unique in this regard (there is very little cultural evolution in other intelligent social animals such as chimps and dolphins, culture defined as horizontal non-genetic transfer of information between individuals).
You're right that the reason why we think of cheating as immoral is because being honest is advantages to the group (even though it may be disadvantageous to the individual), and that is exactly what morality is about. But we (most of us, at least) are taught to feel guilty about cheating by parents and society. In addition, there are other reasons why we don't cheat, such as love. We choose to be decent people, even at an evolutionary cost. Biologically altruism is explained by evolutionary advantage to the group (and, indirectly, to the individual). But behaviorally, we are altruistic not because we expect something in return, but because it's the right thing to do.
Eusocial animals like bees and ants have very rigid policing systems in place to prevent cheating, but these systems do not involve value-based moral emotions such as love and guilt (of course). They involve genetically predetermined chemical intermediation of behavior, such as workers that tear apart those females that lay eggs when the most advantageous set-up for the entire hive is for the queen to lay eggs (sisters are less related to each other than to the queen, thereby making it more genetically advantageous for each worker bee when the queen lays eggs than when their sisters do).
about an hour ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Consider this scenario. You see a dog hit by a car, and go out of your way to help it, taking care of it in your house till it gets better, spending your time and money. Your resources are being "wasted" on the dog. People who do not feel the emotions that you do may make more money and more connection with other people during all that time that you're spending with the dog, increasing their fitness and fecundity (another population genetics term). But it can be argued that you are the more moral one of the two, given certain moral premises. (Of course, given certain other moral premises, the other person may be more moral, since that person may be taking care of injured children in a hospital, etc) There are always moral premises. This is the key thing to remember when discussing ethics.
about an hour ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla "Most of those things would still be considered immoral even if there are no negative social consequences...(adultery)"
my point is that i don't think the adultery example satisfies this since we do agree that it would have negative social consequences to live with idea that adultery is moral , we can make it sound that it is not by particular cases such as a secret love child but i don't think short leash control would work that way ,
in the dog example "You see a dog hit by a car, and go out of your way to help it, taking care of it in your house till it gets better, spending your time and money. Your resources are being "wasted" on the dog. "
let me make it more explicit , a person trying to save his child which in reality is not his child at all and getting crippled for life , success in saving neither helped in gene propagation nor in monetary benefit but , the urge to save the child did not have any advantage(in this case) but it is the presence of the urge that has in many other cases such as saving actual child , it is the urge to save fellow animals specially the cute looking ones that causes the action of saving the dog
26 minutes ago · Like
Rakshi --- Shall we shift this to the forums, please? Very important discussion, and runs the risk of getting lost in the annals of FB 'unarchives. '
23 minutes ago · Like · 2 people
Ajita Kamal "my point is that i don't think the adultery example satisfies this since we do agree that it would have negative social consequences to live with idea that adultery is moral"
But why do we decide that adultery is immoral? Is it because of negative biological consequences? This is why I presented a hypothetical case of adultery where there are NO negative consequences. Most people would still consider it immoral.
"it is the urge to save fellow animals specially the cute looking ones that causes the action of saving the dog"
And that urge is a moral one informed by subjective values.
19 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal The urge to save a cute animal may have evolutionary biological roots, and may translate to biological benefits in certain situations, but saving a cute animal is not always necessarily biologically advantageous, and even when it is not advantageous, it can be moral.
15 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal The point about altruism is buried in one of my comments. Let me pull it out.
Biologically altruism evolved to benefit individuals and groups- that is, it is actually self-serving. But morally, altruism is selfless from the behavioral point o f view.
We often argue that being good just because one expects rewards from god is not morality at all. Morality is being good for goodness sake. It is being good because it is the right thing to do.
12 minutes ago · Like
Rakshi --- Ajita Kamal: Forums, please.
11 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal Sure, Rakshi

11 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
Ganesh Veluswami Hey Rakshi, ain't you an admin too? Can't you move it to the forums too? Just wondering.
10 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla "But why do we decide that adultery is immoral? Is it because of negative biological consequences? This is why I presented a hypothetical case of adultery where there are NO negative consequences. Most people would still consider it immoral."
i "helplessly" find it immoral even when i am trying to get in terms as to override and not find it immoral
"This is why I presented a hypothetical case of adultery where there are NO negative "
"The urge to save a cute animal may have evolutionary biological roots, and may translate to biological benefits in certain situations, but saving a cute animal is not always necessarily biologically advantageous, and even when it is not advantageous, it can be moral."
let me present my problem this way
i find it gross: eating a candy bar placed in a insulated piece of plastic placed in shit , later candy bar is extracted , opened with gloved hands and presented to me completely free from shit , i will still find it gross despite my knowledge that it is completely hygenic and healthy to it , this is because of the short leash control of finding anything that comes from gross shit to be gross that i find it "helplessly gross"
the same way i find it "helpessly immoral" the act of adultery besides you presenting a case and my own desire to not find adultery healthy
9 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla *adultery immoral
8 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla *adultery immoral not healthy
8 minutes ago · Like
Lalit Mohan Chawla no let ajita do the archiving since he won't have word limit proeblem
7 minutes ago · Like
Ajita Kamal "i "helplessly" find it immoral even when i am trying to get in terms as to override and not find it immoral "
I agree. But it is not just biology that makes you feel that way. It is also cultural conditioning- Moral education. What we have developed over thousands of years of culture. Remember the caveman example from above? Very few cavemen would have found adultery immoral, helplessly or otherwise

The shit candy example targets a more basal instinct, and is not exactly related to moral values, although you are right to bring it up, since it is about values in general. But the same logic would apply in such cases also, if there is sufficient conditioning in culture..
OK, Rakshi, moving to forums now!
3 minutes ago · Like
"Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian"
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.
~ J.B.S.Haldane, on being asked to falsify evolution.